|
''Soffiantini v Mould''〔1956 (4) SA 150 (E).〕 is an important case in South African law. An appeal from a decision of Back AJ, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by Price JP, Jennett J and Wynne J on July 30, 1956. Judgment was handed down on August 14, 1956. The appellant's attorneys were Espin & Espin. The respondent's attorney was LB Green. The case concerned the relationship between landlord and tenant, and confirmed that, under the common law, a landlord is not entitled to enter leased premises without consent. The trespassing landlord can be interdicted. The court also found that, in respect of applications and motions, it is the duty of the court to decide difficult issues of fact on affidavit where justice so requires. == Argument == PF O'Hagan, QC. (with him TM Mullins), for the appellant, submitted that whether the respondent's rights were in fact infringed by the appellant was disputed on the affidavits, and that the court ''a quo'' should not have attempted to decide that dispute without hearing evidence.〔See ''Frank v Ohlsson's Cape Breweries Ltd'' 1924 AD 289.〕〔''Peterson v Cuthbert & Co. Ltd'' 145 AD 420.〕 A final interdict should not have been granted on motion: The respondent should have been given a temporary interdict, pending action, or the learned judge could have heard ''viva voce'' evidence under Rule of Court 6.〔See ''Room Hire Co. (Pty.) Ltd v Jeppe Mansions (Pty.) Ltd'' 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).〕 NC Addleson, for the respondent, argued that, on the affidavits, the undisputed facts were such as to justify a final interdict. It was not disputed that the respondent had the contractual rights of a lessee and that the appellant had entered the premises on five occasions in such a manner that the respondent's attorney had once to be called before he left. The appellant was claiming an unrestricted right of entry which is in breach of the respondent's right to ''commodus usus''.〔See ''Strarfield and Starfield v Randles Bros'' 1911 W.L.D. 175 at 181.〕 Such a breach entitled the respondent to a final interdict,〔''Saheebolay v Woolfson'' 1925 AD 38.〕 since a lessor who enters leased premises without permission is a trespasser.〔Halsbury (Hailsham ed.) vol. 20 sec. 243; cf. Watson v Geard, 3 E.D.C. 417 at p. 424; Pothier Letting and Hiring secs. 76 and 80. Section 75, submitted Addleson, was not applicable, since it dealt with rural tenements.〕 The absence of prejudice to the appellant was a factor which the court ''a quo'' correctly took into account.〔''Transvaal Properties v SA Townships'' 1938 T.P.D. at 521.〕 Alternatively, Addleson continued, there was no ''bona fide'' dispute which could not be resolved on affidavit.〔Frank v Ohlsson's Cape Breweries, 1924 AD at p. 294; Prinsloo v Shaw, 1938 AD 570 at p. 573; Room Hire at 1165.〕 As to the application to strike out, the court would not encourage applications which were purely technical and which unnecessarily increased the costs without affecting the merits.〔See ''Elher (Pty.) Ltd v Silver'' 1947 (4) SA 173 (W) at 176 - 7.〕 The allegations, concluded Addleson, were properly before the Court.〔See ''Geanotes v Geanotes'' 1947 (2) SA 512 (C) at 514.〕 The further affidavits for the respondent did not introduce any new matter.〔De Villiers v De Villiers 1937 T.P.D. 60 at p. 63.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Soffiantini v Mould」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|